Cargando…

An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth

BACKGROUND: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have eme...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Flenady, Vicki, Frøen, J Frederik, Pinar, Halit, Torabi, Rozbeh, Saastad, Eli, Guyon, Grace, Russell, Laurie, Charles, Adrian, Harrison, Catherine, Chauke, Lawrence, Pattinson, Robert, Koshy, Rachel, Bahrin, Safiah, Gardener, Glenn, Day, Katie, Petersson, Karin, Gordon, Adrienne, Gilshenan, Kristen
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2009
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19538759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-24
_version_ 1782169053113090048
author Flenady, Vicki
Frøen, J Frederik
Pinar, Halit
Torabi, Rozbeh
Saastad, Eli
Guyon, Grace
Russell, Laurie
Charles, Adrian
Harrison, Catherine
Chauke, Lawrence
Pattinson, Robert
Koshy, Rachel
Bahrin, Safiah
Gardener, Glenn
Day, Katie
Petersson, Karin
Gordon, Adrienne
Gilshenan, Kristen
author_facet Flenady, Vicki
Frøen, J Frederik
Pinar, Halit
Torabi, Rozbeh
Saastad, Eli
Guyon, Grace
Russell, Laurie
Charles, Adrian
Harrison, Catherine
Chauke, Lawrence
Pattinson, Robert
Koshy, Rachel
Bahrin, Safiah
Gardener, Glenn
Day, Katie
Petersson, Karin
Gordon, Adrienne
Gilshenan, Kristen
author_sort Flenady, Vicki
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have emerged. We assessed the performance of six contemporary systems to inform the development of an internationally accepted approach. METHODS: We evaluated the following systems: Amended Aberdeen, Extended Wigglesworth; PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe, Tulip and CODAC. Nine teams from 7 countries applied the classification systems to cohorts of stillbirths from their regions using 857 stillbirth cases. The main outcome measures were: the ability to retain the important information about the death using the InfoKeep rating; the ease of use according to the Ease rating (both measures used a five-point scale with a score <2 considered unsatisfactory); inter-observer agreement and the proportion of unexplained stillbirths. A randomly selected subset of 100 stillbirths was used to assess inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: InfoKeep scores were significantly different across the classifications (p ≤ 0.01) due to low scores for Wigglesworth and Aberdeen. CODAC received the highest mean (SD) score of 3.40 (0.73) followed by PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe and Tulip [2.77 (1.00), 2.36 (1.21), 1.92 (1.24) respectively]. Wigglesworth and Aberdeen resulted in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths and CODAC and Tulip the lowest. While Ease scores were different (p ≤ 0.01), all systems received satisfactory scores; CODAC received the highest score. Aberdeen and Wigglesworth showed poor agreement with kappas of 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. Tulip performed best with a kappa of 0.74. The remainder had good to fair agreement. CONCLUSION: The Extended Wigglesworth and Amended Aberdeen systems cannot be recommended for classification of stillbirths. Overall, CODAC performed best with PSANZ-PDC and ReCoDe performing well. Tulip was shown to have the best agreement and a low proportion of unexplained stillbirths. The virtues of these systems need to be considered in the development of an international solution to classification of stillbirths. Further studies are required on the performance of classification systems in the context of developing countries. Suboptimal agreement highlights the importance of instituting measures to ensure consistency for any classification system.
format Text
id pubmed-2706223
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2009
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-27062232009-07-07 An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth Flenady, Vicki Frøen, J Frederik Pinar, Halit Torabi, Rozbeh Saastad, Eli Guyon, Grace Russell, Laurie Charles, Adrian Harrison, Catherine Chauke, Lawrence Pattinson, Robert Koshy, Rachel Bahrin, Safiah Gardener, Glenn Day, Katie Petersson, Karin Gordon, Adrienne Gilshenan, Kristen BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have emerged. We assessed the performance of six contemporary systems to inform the development of an internationally accepted approach. METHODS: We evaluated the following systems: Amended Aberdeen, Extended Wigglesworth; PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe, Tulip and CODAC. Nine teams from 7 countries applied the classification systems to cohorts of stillbirths from their regions using 857 stillbirth cases. The main outcome measures were: the ability to retain the important information about the death using the InfoKeep rating; the ease of use according to the Ease rating (both measures used a five-point scale with a score <2 considered unsatisfactory); inter-observer agreement and the proportion of unexplained stillbirths. A randomly selected subset of 100 stillbirths was used to assess inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: InfoKeep scores were significantly different across the classifications (p ≤ 0.01) due to low scores for Wigglesworth and Aberdeen. CODAC received the highest mean (SD) score of 3.40 (0.73) followed by PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe and Tulip [2.77 (1.00), 2.36 (1.21), 1.92 (1.24) respectively]. Wigglesworth and Aberdeen resulted in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths and CODAC and Tulip the lowest. While Ease scores were different (p ≤ 0.01), all systems received satisfactory scores; CODAC received the highest score. Aberdeen and Wigglesworth showed poor agreement with kappas of 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. Tulip performed best with a kappa of 0.74. The remainder had good to fair agreement. CONCLUSION: The Extended Wigglesworth and Amended Aberdeen systems cannot be recommended for classification of stillbirths. Overall, CODAC performed best with PSANZ-PDC and ReCoDe performing well. Tulip was shown to have the best agreement and a low proportion of unexplained stillbirths. The virtues of these systems need to be considered in the development of an international solution to classification of stillbirths. Further studies are required on the performance of classification systems in the context of developing countries. Suboptimal agreement highlights the importance of instituting measures to ensure consistency for any classification system. BioMed Central 2009-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2706223/ /pubmed/19538759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-24 Text en Copyright © 2009 Flenady et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Flenady, Vicki
Frøen, J Frederik
Pinar, Halit
Torabi, Rozbeh
Saastad, Eli
Guyon, Grace
Russell, Laurie
Charles, Adrian
Harrison, Catherine
Chauke, Lawrence
Pattinson, Robert
Koshy, Rachel
Bahrin, Safiah
Gardener, Glenn
Day, Katie
Petersson, Karin
Gordon, Adrienne
Gilshenan, Kristen
An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
title An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
title_full An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
title_fullStr An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
title_full_unstemmed An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
title_short An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
title_sort evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706223/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19538759
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-24
work_keys_str_mv AT flenadyvicki anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT frøenjfrederik anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT pinarhalit anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT torabirozbeh anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT saastadeli anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT guyongrace anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT russelllaurie anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT charlesadrian anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT harrisoncatherine anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT chaukelawrence anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT pattinsonrobert anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT koshyrachel anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT bahrinsafiah anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT gardenerglenn anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT daykatie anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT peterssonkarin anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT gordonadrienne anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT gilshenankristen anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT flenadyvicki evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT frøenjfrederik evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT pinarhalit evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT torabirozbeh evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT saastadeli evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT guyongrace evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT russelllaurie evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT charlesadrian evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT harrisoncatherine evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT chaukelawrence evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT pattinsonrobert evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT koshyrachel evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT bahrinsafiah evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT gardenerglenn evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT daykatie evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT peterssonkarin evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT gordonadrienne evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth
AT gilshenankristen evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth